Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are there clinical studies supporting Total Package Serum for skin care?
Executive Summary
Total Package Serum is repeatedly marketed as “clinically tested” or “clinically formulated,” but independent checks of available product pages and reviews find no published clinical trial or peer‑reviewed study that evaluates the finished serum itself. Multiple reviews and product descriptions instead point to clinical literature supporting individual ingredients—peptides, hyaluronic acid, vitamin C derivatives—while failing to present a verifiable trial, protocol, or publication for the combined formulation [1] [2] [3]. The strongest factual conclusion supported by the available materials is that the serum contains ingredients with clinical evidence for skin benefits, but there is no concrete, cited clinical study of the product as sold [4] [5].
1. Marketing Claims Versus Verifiable Evidence: What Companies Say and What Reviewers Find
Sun Coast Sciences and related promotional pages and reviews describe Total Package Serum using phrases like “clinically tested” and “clinically formulated,” which convey the impression of product‑level clinical validation. Independent reviews and summary analyses published throughout 2024–2025 examined those claims and found that the websites and articles make the marketing assertions without linking to a specific trial, clinical protocol, or journal article that evaluates the serum as a finished product [1] [3]. The gap is factual and specific: promotional language is present, but no cited clinical study for the complete formulation appears in the provided sources, leaving the claim unverifiable based on the materials reviewed [2].
2. Ingredient-Level Evidence: Strong Science for Some Components, Not for the Product
Analyses consistently note that many ingredients in Total Package Serum—such as peptides like Argireline and Matrixyl variants, hyaluronic acid, and Stay‑C (sodium ascorbyl phosphate)—have peer‑reviewed studies and clinical trials supporting their biological activity and anti‑aging effects when tested individually [4] [5]. Reviews from March and April 2025 explicitly list these ingredients and cite general literature on their mechanisms and outcomes, concluding that scientific support exists at the ingredient level, not necessarily at the combined formulation level [4] [5]. This distinction matters because interaction effects, concentrations, vehicle, and stability determine whether ingredient‑level evidence translates into clinically meaningful results for a finished product.
3. Reviewers’ Conclusions: Consensus on Ingredients, Divergence on Product Claims
Multiple review sites published in 2024–2025 reach a similar conclusion: Total Package Serum likely benefits from bioactive components with demonstrated efficacy, but reviewers criticize the lack of transparent, citable clinical trials specific to the serum [6] [2]. Some reviewers highlight formulation concerns—such as the use of phenoxyethanol plus ethylhexylglycerin as a preservative blend flagged as potentially undesirable by certain commentators—while noting that alternative products might offer similar ingredient profiles at different price points [4]. The reviewers consistently treat the company’s “clinically tested” language as a claim that has not been substantiated with accessible trial data.
4. What a Published Clinical Study Would Look Like—and Why It’s Missing
A valid clinical study of the finished serum would include a methods section, sample size, endpoints (wrinkle depth, hydration, pigmentation), statistical analysis, trial registration, and ideally peer review and PubMed indexing. None of the reviewed product pages or independent analyses provided these elements, nor did they link to trial registration or journal articles; instead they cite generic studies on ingredient classes (hyaluronic acid, vitamin C derivatives) without demonstrating a trial of the marketed combination [2] [3]. The absence of such methodological detail is a concrete, verifiable gap: marketing statements exist, but the primary study artifacts that would verify them are not present in the sources.
5. Practical Takeaway for Consumers and Researchers: What Is Known and What Remains Unproven
From the assembled reviews and product descriptions dated through mid‑2025, the factual landscape is clear: the serum’s components are supported by clinical literature, but the serum itself lacks a disclosed clinical trial in the materials reviewed [4] [5] [3]. Consumers and clinicians should treat product‑level “clinically tested” claims as unverified until a trial report, registration, or peer‑reviewed publication is produced. Researchers or journalists seeking verification should request trial identifiers, full protocols, or publications from the manufacturer; until such materials are produced, assertions about the serum’s clinical efficacy remain supported only indirectly via ingredient evidence [1] [5].